|
|
Post by sevb on Apr 30, 2015 19:17:02 GMT -5
GM2 motto: "We are right (ignore the fact that we can't even explain our so-called data) and everyone else is an idiot!" Post of the year nominee |
|
rook
Sophomore
Posts: 182
|
Post by rook on Apr 30, 2015 22:13:51 GMT -5
Such Kessel-esque condescension. Where did this coach say that they don't practice passing? If I pass 100 balls then attack 100 balls, my number of reps is the same if I pass-to-attack 100 times. By the time I'm in college, is it good to work on being able to do those two extremely different skills back-to-back? Of course. However, these are 5th graders. You just claimed that number of reps was very important. If this team of 5th graders is anything like the 5th graders I've coached in the past, if the attacker only gets the chance to hit the ball after a successful set-tip-pass-set sequence, they'll get AT MOST 10% of the attacking reps they'd get if I were tossing the ball for them to hit. So if I don't have anybody on my team that can set a hittable ball, I shouldn't allow my attackers to practice attacking. Is your goal to get your players better or prepare them to win matches in their 5th-grade league? You're right, if your goal is to win 5th-grade matches, by all means have them practice getting unhittable sets and bump the ball over the net (in fact, I'd recommend just bumping the first ball over the net to eliminate the chance of error). If you want to expose them to the skill of attacking and work on technique, they need to start with a hittable ball. I probably wouldn't have responded to this if it weren't for how you signed off. That's the way to grow the game - taunt and belittle people who teach the game differently than you. When I coach, I use a combination of these methods, so by no means am I saying your methods are wrong, but you presenting it as dogma and that every coach that disagrees with you is in need of rehabilitation is sickening. The majority of the most successful youth clubs in the country DO NOT do what you (and John Kessel) are suggesting. Again, that doesn't make your method wrong. It just makes saying your method is the only way to be a successful coach is wrong. GM2 motto: "We are right (ignore the fact that we can't even explain our so-called data) and everyone else is an idiot!" +1 |
|
|
|
Post by mplssetter on Apr 30, 2015 23:22:30 GMT -5
Doesn't sound that bad to me. Sounds like the players were lazy. You may be right. If your a coach give it a try. If your in the drill for longer than 3 minutes you should probably reevaluate you career choice and your players, lazy or motivated, should run for their volleyball lives. No, I'm not going to try that one. I think there are better ways to work on reaction time that are more game-like. However, I was commenting more on the fact that your team cheated by looking under the curtain. Perhaps taking the short cut effectively guaranteed that you got nothing out of the drill. Just sayin'. |
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on May 1, 2015 6:28:07 GMT -5
You may be right. If your a coach give it a try. If your in the drill for longer than 3 minutes you should probably reevaluate you career choice and your players, lazy or motivated, should run for their volleyball lives. No, I'm not going to try that one. I think there are better ways to work on reaction time that are more game-like. However, I was commenting more on the fact that your team cheated by looking under the curtain. Perhaps taking the short cut effectively guaranteed that you got nothing out of the drill. Just sayin'. et The only thing you get from that drill, if done correctly, is players learn to look at the WRONG things. Those players helped themselves by "cheating" |
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on May 1, 2015 6:38:58 GMT -5
Curtain over the net drill. Curtain over the net, coach on one side team on the other. Coach hits down ball at the team forcing team to react. Dumbest drill ever. when the curtain came out practice was essentially over. We would position 1 player on his hands and knees and watch where the coaches feet were pointing and point in that direction so the defender didn't have to react. I think it depends in context, right? I've done this, with serving, in the past, for short periods of time....but, we talk about how to "read" the ball---see the top, appropriate reaction, see the bottom, yada, yada. it also decreases reaction time, causing the serve to "seem" to be faster. Then we talk about what info they normal get from the server that was missing....and what info they SHOULD be getting from the server. I think a lot of these drills are ok, in a particular context. when they lose that context, they get ugly... |
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on May 1, 2015 7:09:47 GMT -5
Curtain over the net drill. Curtain over the net, coach on one side team on the other. Coach hits down ball at the team forcing team to react. Dumbest drill ever. when the curtain came out practice was essentially over. We would position 1 player on his hands and knees and watch where the coaches feet were pointing and point in that direction so the defender didn't have to react. I think it depends in context, right? I've done this, with serving, in the past, for short periods of time....but, we talk about how to "read" the ball---see the top, appropriate reaction, see the bottom, yada, yada. it also decreases reaction time, causing the serve to "seem" to be faster. Then we talk about what info they normal get from the server that was missing....and what info they SHOULD be getting from the server. I think a lot of these drills are ok, in a particular context. when they lose that context, they get ugly... Horrible idea. Teaches players to look at all the wrong things. Keep your bedsheets on your bed. |
|
|
|
Post by mplssetter on May 1, 2015 7:32:40 GMT -5
Keep your bedsheets on your bed. Some might disagree...  |
|
|
|
Post by vballguy2001 on May 1, 2015 9:21:08 GMT -5
Drills don't teach players how to do things, coaches do.
The best drills are ones that gives a coach an opportunity to teach the players the skills they are weak at. A bad coach can make any "drill" bad, and a good coach can make a bad drill.....decent.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on May 1, 2015 9:21:22 GMT -5
another good use.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on May 1, 2015 10:04:14 GMT -5
I have seen the bedsheet over the net drill used by another coach once and did not think much of it. A lot of our volleyball skills come from reading what is happening on the other side of the net before the ball even crosses the net. How can we develop our reading skills when we cannot see what's happening on the other side to help make adjustments with our body on our side of the net?
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on May 1, 2015 12:05:16 GMT -5
You may be right. If your a coach give it a try. If your in the drill for longer than 3 minutes you should probably reevaluate you career choice and your players, lazy or motivated, should run for their volleyball lives. No, I'm not going to try that one. I think there are better ways to work on reaction time that are more game-like. However, I was commenting more on the fact that your team cheated by looking under the curtain. Perhaps taking the short cut effectively guaranteed that you got nothing out of the drill. Just sayin'. Our team not only cheated but revolted. This was one of many things this coach did that were utterly stupid. We knew it as young men and time has proven us correct. There are very few true innovators and many pretenders trying to reinvent the game and leave there mark to the detriment of their players.
|
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on May 1, 2015 12:07:34 GMT -5
Keep your bedsheets on your bed. Some might disagree... Having experienced the drill , I concur. |
|
|
|
Post by vbc1 on May 1, 2015 13:07:34 GMT -5
Such Kessel-esque condescension. Think of it this way: I will use the outside hitter as my example. The number one skill for outside hitters is passing. Anyone can hit a ball straight down, but if you cant get a pass to the setter, then you are not able to get a good set to hit in the first place. Any coach will tell you that passing is the premiere skill for that position. Now, you are a 12 year old girl/boy, and you are learning volleyball. You probably are in a "hitting-line" type drill for 20-50 reps per day (that is conservative). Multiply that by 3 days a week, and then as you get involved with your high school JV then Varsity, and then factor in club ball, well, you get the point. The average number of hitting line type attacks is in the 1,000's. (lets just say, for argument sake, that number is 10,000) by the time you are ready for college ball. Now, I don't know about you, but if I did something 10,000 times, versus 1,000 times, I am going to get pretty good at it. (provided my coaches didn't screw me up with their technique training). Sure, at your level, it is going to be ugly at first. Heck, it may even be ugly for that entire year! BUT, the reality is, you are supposed to be training them to be better volleyball players, and try to teach the ENTIRE game, not just a portion of it. You are, in fact, stealing valuable reps from the young kids, who need this time to construct their own foundations of skills. Where did this coach say that they don't practice passing? If I pass 100 balls then attack 100 balls, my number of reps is the same if I pass-to-attack 100 times. By the time I'm in college, is it good to work on being able to do those two extremely different skills back-to-back? Of course. However, these are 5th graders. You just claimed that number of reps was very important. If this team of 5th graders is anything like the 5th graders I've coached in the past, if the attacker only gets the chance to hit the ball after a successful set-tip-pass-set sequence, they'll get AT MOST 10% of the attacking reps they'd get if I were tossing the ball for them to hit. So if I don't have anybody on my team that can set a hittable ball, I shouldn't allow my attackers to practice attacking. Is your goal to get your players better or prepare them to win matches in their 5th-grade league? You're right, if your goal is to win 5th-grade matches, by all means have them practice getting unhittable sets and bump the ball over the net (in fact, I'd recommend just bumping the first ball over the net to eliminate the chance of error). If you want to expose them to the skill of attacking and work on technique, they need to start with a hittable ball. I probably wouldn't have responded to this if it weren't for how you signed off. That's the way to grow the game - taunt and belittle people who teach the game differently than you. When I coach, I use a combination of these methods, so by no means am I saying your methods are wrong, but you presenting it as dogma and that every coach that disagrees with you is in need of rehabilitation is sickening. The majority of the most successful youth clubs in the country DO NOT do what you (and John Kessel) are suggesting. Again, that doesn't make your method wrong. It just makes saying your method is the only way to be a successful coach is wrong. Ok nOOb, I'll bite. First off, calm your jets. No one here was telling this poster that he was wrong for trying to get his kids good sets to hit. All that was said was here was a better way to do it. You responding to what you perceive my "sign off" to be is jumping to conclusions. I was making sure that the original poster understood what I was describing. Nothing more, nothing less. I didn't belittle anyone, nor do I belittle anyone with different coaching methods. Who said anything about rehabilitation? Sickening? Get over yourself. Seems like you are a little too defensive for this. And, if my providing someone else with a better way to do things is sickening, perhaps it is YOU who is disagreeing too much? Second, I am not a Kessel disciple, nor am I a GM2 mafia member. I am merely presenting to you the 10,000 hour rule, which was discussed in many different arenas of training. So, if you want to lump me in with those guys, then so be it. But, they are not my driving force for teaching volleyball. Yes, you are right, there are a large number of jr clubs in the country that don't do this, and some of them are successful. I never said my way was the only way, so not sure where you got that. However, I will say that having the kids do the whole skill, and not just part of the skill, is better for growth in the long run. May not be the best for the moment, sure. But, it is better for them than having a coach do the setting. Again, I ask you, when will the coach EVER be setting in a game? The answer of course, is never. And, any college coach will tell you that the time trying to teach some kids how to do simple skills (such as passing and then hitting) takes a long amount of exhaustive time spent in the gym. Some kids don't get it until later in their careers. Wouldn't it be nice to have a kid come into your program with that simple skill somewhat mastered already? Again, any coach would tell you, yes they would. Before you get your panties in a bunch, I am not looking to get into any argument on which way to train is better than the next. There are many threads like that on here. All I tried to do was explain a better way to do something. Thats all. |
|
|
|
Post by oshkoshdadmjs on May 1, 2015 14:06:37 GMT -5
After reading all the responses and the arguments over GM2 I'll toss in my two cents.
I think GM2 has taken good ideas (more contacts=more development; the game teaches the game, etc.) and just beat the hell out of them to a point where it's annoying to hear talked about. Listening to "GM2 mafia members" (thx for the term vbc1) answer everything with just that "the game teaches the game" is incredibly silly. It's like talking to a libertarian whose answer to every question is just "well the market will fix it." This religious devotion to an ideology is insanity. There are middle grounds where coaches aren't just letting 12 year olds slap at balls all practice and never get to hit a ball, but also aren't standing on boxes every practice and hitting line shots at each player/serving every ball to an entire team while a line of 12 waits for ~1 minute between contacts.
Personally, I really liked some things that I've heard from Kessel, but it's just important to internalize the advice in moderation. For instance, I love starting off my practices by dividing the court up in half and have a constant rotating individual competition of 2 v 2 which goes on week after week. More balls in play, more ball control, it's great. However, I'm not gonna go to great lengths to make sure that there are 4 balls in the air at all times with drills I don't think make sense just to get the maximum amount of touches for players. I'm also not going to just let kids go out and play if we look sloppy, have bad footwork, can't approach properly, have bad arm swings, or don't know blocking footwork. Occasionally there will be drills where I'm hitting a ball at a player to isolate something (blocking footwork, blocking form, defensive positioning and posture when the ball is contacted, etc.); and this is also fine occasionally.
tl;dr -- oshkoshdadmjs is tired of people just thinking the gm2's "the game teaches the game" will fix everything; there are better, more dynamic, ways to coach
|
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on May 1, 2015 19:58:08 GMT -5
After reading all the responses and the arguments over GM2 I'll toss in my two cents. I think GM2 has taken good ideas (more contacts=more development; the game teaches the game, etc.) and just beat the hell out of them to a point where it's annoying to hear talked about. Listening to "GM2 mafia members" (thx for the term vbc1) answer everything with just that "the game teaches the game" is incredibly silly. It's like talking to a libertarian whose answer to every question is just "well the market will fix it." This religious devotion to an ideology is insanity. There are middle grounds where coaches aren't just letting 12 year olds slap at balls all practice and never get to hit a ball, but also aren't standing on boxes every practice and hitting line shots at each player/serving every ball to an entire team while a line of 12 waits for ~1 minute between contacts. Personally, I really liked some things that I've heard from Kessel, but it's just important to internalize the advice in moderation. For instance, I love starting off my practices by dividing the court up in half and have a constant rotating individual competition of 2 v 2 which goes on week after week. More balls in play, more ball control, it's great. However, I'm not gonna go to great lengths to make sure that there are 4 balls in the air at all times with drills I don't think make sense just to get the maximum amount of touches for players. I'm also not going to just let kids go out and play if we look sloppy, have bad footwork, can't approach properly, have bad arm swings, or don't know blocking footwork. Occasionally there will be drills where I'm hitting a ball at a player to isolate something (blocking footwork, blocking form, defensive positioning and posture when the ball is contacted, etc.); and this is also fine occasionally. tl;dr -- oshkoshdadmjs is tired of people just thinking the gm2's "the game teaches the game" will fix everything; there are better, more dynamic, ways to coach Excellent post... I would like to add "the game teaches the game" can be very misleading... We had a Kessel devotee coaching 132s years ago. All they did was play games, with no feedback. They got better at winning games, but the kids fell behind because they weren't learning technique... By the start of the next year, it was ugly... Just my $.02... |
|
